Instead of buying the hype, we go straight to the source. John McCain on illegal immigration.
McCain meets the media in Derry, NH (GG photo)
.
When word got around that I will be voting for John McCain in Tuesday's primary here in New Hampshire, a small number of folks suggested I am making a mistake due to his stance on illegal immigration. As I said in my endorsement post, on immigration,
I am confident that McCain “gets it” when it comes to this one. At a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro just after the defeat of the so-called “comprehensive” immigration bill, he duly noted that Americans had spoken and want the borders verifiably sealed before anything else gets done in this area. It is the rare politician that acknowledges being wrong on a matter, and recognizes the collective voice of regular people.
As luck would have it, I attended a town hall event in Derry last evening where Senator McCain was asked about his position on the matter, and we caught it on video. You'll see that he answers in a fair amount of detail, explaining himself and the thought process that goes into formulating his position. Additionally, Joe Lieberman, also appearing in support of McCain, rather plainly states that the notion of McCain supporting amnesty for illegal aliens is a lie. The clip runs slightly over three and a half minutes...
.
.
"But what about those still here?" you ask. "What about the 12 million?" Again, lets go straight to the source. Today I participated in yet another "blogger conference call" with the Senator, and I asked him just that. As he noted in the video above, in his administration, the estimated 2 million illegals that have commited crimes will be "rounded up and deported." He also reiterated his commitment to verifiably sealing the borders and unambiguosly stated that there would be NO reward for illegal behavior. He favors a "touchback" provision that involves paying a fine and passing the naturalization process with its English requirements-- AND waiting in line behind those already pursuing the legal steps.
.
I followed up by asking how he views a "get-tough on the employers" plan that will force numbers of illegals out through osmosis. He replied that he favors the concept of a tamper-proof ID card coupled with an Employer ID system that verifies the process-- "any employer that doesn't follow the rules of the system will be prosecuted." This sounds remarkably similar to that which is being offered by several of his fellow candidates. He emphasised that all of this will be dealt with and "handled in a humane and compassionate fashion."
.
I trust that he is being truthful when he speaks. I was in Wolfeboro after the collapse of his frontrunner status following the defeat of the "comprehensive" immigration bill he championed, when he addressed the issue. I have heard him address it several times in public forums since, including last night in Derry, and engaged in a detailed conversation with him about the topic in today's conference call. I take him at his word that he will close our borders before any other steps are taken-- none of which includes amnesty or other rewards for illegal behavior. Heck, he sounds MORE committed at this point than some of his opponents that claim this as their signature issue...
.
Comments
Lieberman is technically telling the truth, but only technically. Everyone who paid any attention to the debate over last summer's immigration bill knows that it contained provisions which amounted to a de facto amnesty. The bill said that the government shall issue a Z-visa card to any immigrant who files the proper paperwork unless a background check shows they didn't qualify for one. Running background checks on twelve million illegals would be impossible even if one could assume all the paperwork was valid. Thus, any illegal who was able to purchase forged documents would get a Z visa, and "probationary" legal status which would effectively be permanent since the government doesn't have the time, money, or manpower to challenge it.
The Z-visa provision was a fig leaf, nothing more, designed so that legislators who voted for it would still be able to claim with a straight face that they hadn't supported an amnesty.
Posted by: wolfwalker | January 4, 2008 8:03 PM
Posted by: Jeff | January 5, 2008 10:39 PM
Posted by: doug | January 6, 2008 6:45 AM
Posted by: Jeff | January 6, 2008 11:14 AM
Posted by: ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 6, 2008 5:33 PM
So rather than do any logical analysis of McCain's actual policy positions on illegal immigration, you think we should instead take someone's impression that he believes he can take him at his word. Sorry if I'm less than convinced by some unknown-to-most third party's feeling about something so intangible. I prefer to take McCain's own current description of what he would do and use my ability to reason to garner its meaning.
You can't control immigration at the border alone. That's not just my position. It's the position of almost all serious and honest analysts of the problem. It simply raises the costs of getting in while preserving the benefits available after succeeding. Illegal immigrants are rational people and they will make judgments about the costs and benefits. If they believe they will be able to reap the rewards that those currently here illegally reap, and get the even greater rewards McCain wants offer, they are going to find a way to get inside the country. And I note again that a large percentage of current illegal population didn't violate laws coming into the country.
Saying something is not a reward is meaningless, other than putting at issue the credibility of person who says it, if logic leads to the opposite conclusion.
It is precisely their illegality that entitles the people to the opportunity McCain want to bestow, an opportunity that isn't available to the hundreds of millions of people from other countries that would like the same opportunity. The difference: they didn't break our immigration laws and hence are ineligible.
As whether it is amnesty, Romney has done a masterful job of summarizing the essence of the issue this weekend. While acknowledging that it might not meet some versions of a technical definition when there are conditions attached, he also said that people would widely view it as such. And indeed they do.
Posted by: Jeff | January 6, 2008 10:27 PM